Saturday, December 08, 2012

Did I just “go there”?
Yes, I did. Abortion, by the numbers, is a racist institution. This statement
has nothing to do with agendas or intent. It has everything to do with the
simple, undeniable reality that in the US, abortion kills minority children at
more than 3 times the rate of white children. According to the Alan Guttmacher
Institute (IPPF’s research wing), the rate is even worse for black children who
are 5 times more likely die of abortion! This fact alone is staggering!

This phenomenon of "black genocide” by
abortionists and its necessary exposure is what drives activists such as Alveda
C. King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. who quotes her uncle often when
outlining her opposition of abortion:

[Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as
he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.”
How can the “Dream” survive if we murder our children? Every aborted baby is
like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her
fate.

Lest you feel these claims are an exaggeration, consider the numbers: Black
women make up only 12.3% of the population but account for 37% of abortions
(almost 2 in 5). White women make up two thirds of the population and account
for one third of the abortions. 80% of Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics
are located in poorer communities with minority populations. The
result of this is that the abortion of Hispanic and Black babies is more than
double their population percentage. Call this what you will-when the slaughter
has an ethnic face and the percentages are double that of the white community
and the killers are almost all white, something is going on here that ought to
make the lovers of racial equality and racial harmony wake up. It is no secret
that Planned Parenthood was founded in racist eugenics-“the science of
improving the population by controlled breeding for desirable inherited
characteristics”- which is continued by the organisation today. So did Apartheid,
the slave plantations, and Nazis to name a few. All evil, all perfectly legal
at the time.

The
Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life group
in the US has produced the above chart which shows that from 1973-2001, abortion has claimed
more than 2.5 times as many black lives as the next 5 leading causes of
death combined. Since 1973, about 16 million black babies were aborted,
which means that the black community would be 36% larger than it is. And that
doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those
aborted a generation ago. Abortion is by no means an equal opportunity killer. Abortion
attacks the "moral fabric" of an entire people. What happens to the
mind of a person, and the social fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting
of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person, and
what kind of a society will we have in Swaziland in 20 years if life continues
to be taken casually by abusing and murdering our children, and aborting or
dumping our babies into pit latrines? The value placed on life must be preserved
if we wish to have any future as a Swazi nation. With a tiny population just
over a million, we must welcome and rejoice over every Swazi baby conceived,
regardless of the circumstances. Every Swazi mother should be treated as a
princess because she bears the nation’s children and grandchildren. We must
learn from America’s shocking disgusting track record, and refuse to allow such
a racist procedure in our borders.(article published in The Swazi Observer, 7th December 2012)

Friday, November 23, 2012

At the moment of conception every aspect
of the genetic inheritance for a new individual will be determined once and for
all: to be a boy or girl, with brown or blue eyes, light or dark, tall or
short; all the rich physical details from head to toes. A new and unique human
being comes into existence with its own distinct genetic code.

In order to better understand why it
is such a lie to argue that abortion is the mere removal of cell tissue,
consider this timeline of prenatal development:

By week 3 of pregnancy, at just 21
days after conception, the heart starts beating! Over the next 4 days, the
heart will settle into its regular rhythm and will start pumping blood
throughout newly formed blood vessels. It will have beat roughly 54 million
times before the baby is even born. Brain and spine are present and organs are preparing
to function, eyes become visible on scans. Week 4: arms and legs are shaped. Day
31, hand formation begins. Day 33, the feet begin taking shape.

By week 6 and 2 days from conception,
early brain waves are measurable. Bone hardening has begun, lips have appeared,
and all 20 baby teeth are in the gums. The baby begins to make spontaneous and
reflexive movements. He responds to stimulus and is able to feel pain. A touch
to the mouth area causes the baby to move his head. Lars Hamberger, Professor
and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Sweden's
Gothenburg University notes that,
"even this early in pregnancy, the baby is extremely lively, in constant
motion, sleeping for only brief periods."

At 7 weeks, hiccups have been
observed. Fingers and toes are distinctly separated. Knee joints are present,
and the baby develops the ability to smell. Day 49 has been elected to be the
final day of the scientifically recorded day-to-day diary of development. On
this day, the baby is 7 weeks old and is considered to be essentially complete.
90% of the structures found in an adult human being can be found in this tiny
body. From here on, the baby waits for birth, growing in size and weight. 75%
of 8-week old babies demonstrate right-handedness.

model of unborn baby at 12 weeks

By
week 9 he can yawn, suck his thumb, and scratch his chin. Week 10: Fingernails,
toenails and unique fingerprints all appear at this time. Between 16-20 weeks,
his body is large enough for the mother to start feeling his kicks. The
earliest baby born in South Africa to survive and become a healthy normal child
was 20 weeks (5 months)! In Swaziland a baby girl was born at 24 weeks (6
months) and is healthy today. At the end of 9 months the baby initiates labour
by stimulating the adrenal cortex to secrete a hormone that induces the
mother's uterus to begin contracting. It is the baby who determines when it's
time for birth!

There has long been a common misperception that
most abortions occur before the baby is recognizably human. Day after day,
thousands of aborting women wrongly believe that they're simply eliminating
some cell tissue or “blob”. Because general ignorance of prenatal development
is so convenient to the abortion industry, it's not hard to guess why Planned
Parenthood does so little to accurately educate women. Isn't it the height of
injustice to abuse another member of the human community simply because they
don't look the way we expect them to? Abortion is not the mere removal of cell
tissue; it is the death of living, growing human beings.

Monday, November 12, 2012

I was greatly saddened by the fact that the Times censored my free speech by ignoring my "letters to the editor" emailed on the 12th and 16th October, and incredibly proud and grateful when the Observer published both, back to back, on the 16th and 17th October.

These 2 challenging letters followed by MP Johannes' comments seem to have started an increasing amount of statements in both national newspapers about Abortion, and its legalization in Swaziland, over the last 3 weeks. That's exactly what I'd hoped would happen. I believe that hard topics very much need to be talked about widely, and every person needs to form a clear opinion on such matters.

What concerns me is the blindly ignorant statements being voiced by at least 2 MPs about the facts of abortion, with Min. Hlobi even suggesting we introduce abortion as population control and that we enforce China's 1 child policy! Such talk disgusts me - as if Swazi's are a herd of cattle to cull, breed and control.

I therefore ask that I may be able to write a daily or weekly feature article about pregnancy, abortion, and post-abortion care for women.

These informative articles would be published for the benefit of educating the public in these matters, and would be written in a factual, honest, and thoroughly-researched way.

Please consider this request. Since organisations like FLAS commonly fill up an entire page with SRH and family planning information, I ask that I might be granted the same platform.

This type of open honest debate on taboo topics is the foundation of journalism excellence world-wide. I am asking you for a chance to use my passion and writing skill to make a difference, please allow me to do so.

Sincerely,

Ruth Cory

Monday 12 Nov 2012

Dear Ruth Cory,

Thank you for your interest in writing for us. I have only received one email from you previously, on the 12th of October, and I think one of your comments was also published in the Swazi News on 3rd November.

Although abortion has been in the news lately, I do not think that this is the right time to put a ‘pro-con’ debate at the centre of our society through a regular column, but you are welcome to send me a sample piece of writing (maximum of 600 words please). We would be looking for a column that balanced both sides, concentrating on the medical and social effects of abortion but without the appeals to emotion with which so many people try to sway this argument. It needs to be about local attitudes, using local statistics, rather than the wider pan-cultural debate. I am not sure if one health issue alone can carry an entire column dedicated to it but you are, of course, always welcome to submit letters to the editor on this topic (please note that the word limit should ideally be around 600 for this, too).

Simon Dawson, Opinion Editor

Monday 12Nov 2012

Dear Simon Dawson,

Thank you for your response. I would be happy to submit a sample to yourself.

Surely a regular column as you've suggested would be opinion driven, as most currently published in the Times are (Mkhulu, Single Lily, Editor, etc)? What I was envisioning was more along the lines of a well-researched public education type of article, informing Swazis of the health risks (both physical and medical) of abortions.

I hate to break it to you, but a "pro-con" debate IS at the centre of society right at this moment! I assume from your comments, and the reluctance of the Times to print pro-woman/pro-life articles & facts, that the Times is pro-abortion. This is deeply disappointing, as true journalism should give voice to both sides in an equal manner and quantity, and let the public make up its mind for itself.

The Times has had no problem so far publishing pro-abortion "appeals to emotion with which so many people try to sway this argument" ALL of the public information regarding both pregnancy and abortions (garnered mostly from IPPF, through FLAS) has been decidedly pro-abortion, and NONE has been pro-woman/pro-life. And my request to balance the scales a little has been met by your polite yet patronising refusal. I am not an anti-abortion fanatic. I am most certainly not religious. I am passionate about the protection of women from abortionist organisations who blatantly mislead in the media and bury medical/scientific fact to further their goals.

I just want to publish the facts&figures, the numerous extensive studies, the health risks, the records detailing mental/emotional health of post-abortive women & their families, and the non-gory, ever-true testimonials of women, and also importantly, address the issues of pregnancies and prenatal development, social difficulties facing Swazi women and put forward solutions and alternatives.

Rest assured that my personal pro-woman/pro-life convictions will be tamped down in the interest of providing moderate, medically-sound articles, especially in an effort to balance the information bias currently going-on. I'm not interested in time-wasting religious arguments, but I will call out the truth, whatever it may be.

It is ironic that you mention wanting to use local or relevant statistics because the article "Abortion is here to stay" in the weekend Times was extremely biased and emotionally charged. In fact, I was shocked to realise that the global statistics used by the reporter in this article are actually those recorded for legal abortions in Africa, America and world-wide.

Your reporter falsely reported the facts by pining on the word "unsafe" in front of "abortion" (and implying that unsafe=illegal). He therefore falsely portrayed these legal abortion statistics as true for illegal or unsafe abortions. This is a huge error, which I hope he did unwittingly, and should be pointed out to the public and apologized for. It is outrageous to take legal abortion statistics off the internet, and dress them up to suit an attack or to sway public opinion on legalisation.

I'll forward my first sample to you shortly, and ask that you consider any future work in the light of fair and accurate public education.

Friday, November 09, 2012

International Planned Parenthood's (IPPF) claim "to provide safe, compassionate abortions" has been ripped apart by recent allegations of medical negligence, fraud, and the prevalence of emotional, physical and verbal abuse of patients by medical staff.

In July 2011, Americans United for Life released a groundbreaking report, The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood, highlighting the scandals and abuses of the abortion provider, which receives over a million dollars a day in taxpayer funding, and detailing the need for further investigation. Since the release of the AUL Report, even more cases have come to light and, in December 2011, several former Planned Parenthood (IPPF) employees wrote a letter to Congress stating that they “are prepared to testify” about the transgressions and horrific crimes they witnessed at Planned Parenthood clinics across the nation. These crimes include not only financial misdeeds but also failure to “detect and act upon instances where a girl or woman was brought to the clinic under some degree of coercion (forced), up to and including instances where the girl or woman was subjected to human trafficking and was a victim of crime".

Former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director, Abby Johnson, testified before the Texas Senate in 2011, “there is no doctor-patient relationship” at Planned Parenthood clinics. Ms. Johnson recounts that at Planned Parenthood clinics, the physician performing a surgical abortion generally never speaks to a woman before her abortion procedure, nor during her recovery process after the procedure. Additionally, Ms. Johnson recalls that for most chemical abortions, there was no physician on site! Neither was there an examination of the patient before the chemical abortion, or a follow-up visitation after the procedure.

This exposure of IPPF Planned Parenthood's media-manipulating and cold-hearted motivations behind gaining immense profits at the cost of both mother and baby are deeply disturbing. Especially when we consider the recent attempts by global abortion providers to gain access to our beloved nation via local organisations such as FLAS and Marie Stopes International (recently opened in Manzini).

Family Life Association of Swaziland (FLAS) is a full member of IPPF and it's website is full of worrying blanket phrases which mimic exactly IPPF's policies and objectives with regards to pushing through abortions as a "reproductive right". For example: "The implementation of activities at FLAS is derived from a 5 year strategic plan which is developed in line with International Planned Parenthood’s strategic framework".

I wonder how many Swazi's are aware of the alarming affiliation FLAS has with this sinister abortionist empire? I wonder how many Swazi's are aware that FLAS lists on it's website that it provides "pre-abortion counseling". Why would it need to do that... what happened to pregnancy counselling? Why are they not advocating that adoption is an alternative? Doesn't this imply that they are quietly condoning the murder of innocent Swazi babies? It makes one wonder whether they advise Swazi women to do it here (illegally) or across the border in South Africa?

These kind of deceptive going-ons greatly undermine the excellent work FLAS does throughout the country, educating us about HIV/AIDS and STD's, family planning, the need to talk about sex openly, and breaking down stigmas and misconceptions wherever they go. This great vehicle for positive change for both men and women in Swaziland must not be allowed to be hi-jacked by organisations like IPPF, to whom Swaziland is merely another country to abuse and suck dry of it's money, dignity and sanctity of human life, and our precious babies.

International abortion providers are becoming increasingly more involved in Swaziland under the pretext of wanting to help Swazi women gain access to "reproductive health". They may have been content in the past to limited their services here, but one day soon they will push to provide abortions legally here in our beautiful country. And when they do that, I desperately hope we are not asleep. We have a duty to our children and grandchildren to watch for the signs in order to block their attempts to gain legal permission to kill off our precious future generations. There is no sitting on the fence in a life and death matter like abortion: in Swaziland we need to show our love for our children and our women and say No to killing, No to abortion.

(this letter was published in the Swazi Observer on 17th October 2012)

It is a fact, backed by numerous reliable scientific studies, that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer. A 1989 study by the International Journal of Epidemiology found a 50% increased risk of breast cancer after abortion. An Obstetrics & Gynaecology survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute, USA concluded in 1994 that if an 18-year-old, pregnant for the first time, decides to abort her baby, her risk of breast cancer is almost doubled.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among South African women. According to the SA National Cancer Registry (2003) the lifetime risk of all females developing breast cancer is 1:31. In America, where abortion has been legal since 1973 throughout all 9 months of pregnancy (including partial-birth abortion in some States) the statistics warn that 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer. It can be a deadly disease and one that many women fear.A woman’s risk for some types of breast cancer is related to hormone levels in the body. Breast cells normally grow and divide in response to hormones like estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin. Levels of these hormones change throughout a woman’s life, but can change a lot during pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant, her body gets ready for breast-feeding by altering the levels of these hormones. This causes changes in the breast tissue. Abortion interrupts this normal cycle of hormones during pregnancy, breast cells remain immature and are more susceptible to breast cancer, thus increases a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

In the UK in 2010, a team of scientists confirmed the abortion-breast cancer link while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the disease. While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion. Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking. The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer. The findings prompted global accusations that women are not being properly informed of the dangers of abortion.

UK Professor Jack Scarisbrick, the chairman of Life, a pregnancy counselling charity, said: "This is devastating new evidence of the abortion-breast cancer link. We have encountered from the pro-abortion lobby manipulation of the evidence on a truly disgraceful scale. This study is further evidence that has been gathering from all around the world that abortion is a major risk factor for breast cancer. When will the (medical) establishment face up to this fact and pull its head out of the sand? It is betraying women by failing to warn that what they are doing to their bodies -the quick fix of abortion- can do grave harm."

It seems that the early extensive scientific studies warning of these overwhelming abortion-breast cancer links have been ignored and maliciously buried far from public sight by profit-greedy empires like Planned Parenthood (IPPF) at the expense of women's health, and at the horrifying cost of millions of babies' lives.

It is therefore fitting that this October, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we expose the lies fed to our beloved women and society about abortion, and its supposed "safety". Instead we must identify the real and grave dangers our mothers, sisters, and daughters are put in whenever abortion is portrayed as anything but what it really is: Murder! Let's wake up to the truth, expose it, and end it.

(this letter was published in the Swazi Observer on 16th October 2012)

Thursday, January 12, 2012

i'm not the NY resolution typey person but i'm thinking mayhap that one brilliant thing to resolve to do more of this year (if i were to make any kind of cheesey resolution, you see) is to wear more RED! isn't that a stroke of genius?! think about it...

you could resolve to do productive achievable things like taking more vacation time from work to spend time with your family or travel to someplace new, instead of the usual recycled generic stuff like going to the gym, dieting, or quiting smoking.

invest in simple ways to better your loved ones lives and you ultimately invest in your own happiness, right? push beyond your comfort zone, and you'll grow... resolve to love, to smile, to learn, to create, to dance...

all about...

Ruth was born in the 80s in the tiny kingdom of Swaziland, to 2 awesome missionary parents from the Netherlands. Ruth has 4 sisters, 4 nieces, and 2 precious sons. Oh, and 1 husband and 1 crazy cat Duchess! Ruth can be described as gorgeous now, and eccentric when she gets older.